Perpetual motion is easy. Extracting energy from said machine is impossible.
A machine which appears to be perpetual motion and provides extractable energy is also easy. It fails as soon as you leave whatever environmental conditions you're exploiting.
People are too focused on rich people and big business. You hear a lot about the rich paying their fair share, but not much about the poor getting anything. This was a key point in my dispute about the GOP tax plan in one of my recent press releases: the GOP plan doesn't put much of anything into the hands of the poorest.
This is another natural consequence: folks say, "Oh, maybe the Government can be more fiscally-responsible--WAIT NO, NO, KEEP SPENDING $200Bn MORE THAN YOU NEED TO BECAUSE FUCK JEFF BEZOS HE'S RICH ENOUGH NOW!!!!" That, at least, is the point of the headline, the "two-edged sword" comment, and the outcry. Really, how does Jeff Bezos being even more super-rich hurt anything?
We need to focus on excessive government spending so we can pay for things like, oh I don't know, a $200Bn public healthcare option to get 100% of Americans covered 100% of the time. The rich people are fine--they're rich, which means they don't go without food, homes, or healthcare. Let's talk about the 41 million people who don't eat every day: we obviously aren't serving their needs properly.
I am, quite naturally, a proponent of strong encryption standards, implementations, and practices to protect people's business. That's the foundation of my plan to create legislation charging regulators to use NIST published standards and the latest consumer-grade (read: generally-affordable) technology to put a sharp end to identity theft. It doesn't work if, somewhere, there's a magical little MacGuffin you could steal to undermine the whole system.
Criminals fuck up. They do things that draw a great deal of attention, and create a great deal of noise doing it--or they're irrelevant and pointless to pursue. Whenever you touch lots and lots of things, you get your prints all over those things--you leave fingerprints, or glove prints, or you nudge things out of place. You leave behind a pattern. You interact with other people, and Special Investigator Mueller gathers evidence nine million years's worth of Child Pornography convictions and pressures them into revealing what they know of you.
If an encryption key shields you from indictment, you must be either too good to catch just by having laws weakening the usual encryption tools or not be doing anything of so much note as to require the attention of the lawman.
I am not sure what sort of law can protect against this. Constitutional law may; Federal law declaring there may be no law to weaken encryption can always be repealed in the same bill which establishes such weakening of encryption. Privacy laws generally provide all kinds of complex concerns and have loads of unintended consequences.
That's kind of annoying, because I don't like the ideal of continuous vigilance as a defense. We get old and slack; we get replaced by others; we get new lawmakers who no longer care.
Most humans are a tool used by other humans as well
Except those humans earn wages. Horses don't earn wages; we feed them because they need to eat or they die. They have upkeep costs, like oil and electricity for a machine. We don't give them the discretion to buy toys and get a college education to become a race horse instead of a draft horse.
I'm aware of unemployment rates. Unemployment in the 2008 Great Recession peaked at 10% and we've seen that first-hand. My point is unemployment isn't permanently-raised by technology; it's temporarily-raised. The rate of replacement is what matters.
Some signs of schizotypal personality disorder include:
Odd beliefs
Unusual ways of speaking or speech patterns
Odd behaviors
Abnormal choices in dress and appearance
Excessive demonstration of emotion or feeling
Discomfort in social contexts
Abnormal preoccupations or obsessions (e.g., conspiracy theories, belief in UFOs or aliens, etc.)
No close relationships
Often, odd thought patterns, beliefs and behaviors become such a preoccupation for the patient that they are unable to maintain normal relationships with others.
Isn't it the Republicans who fight against unions, worker protections, healthcare coverage, abortion, birth control in healthcare coverage, regulations on businesses, and so forth? Obama's Democrat-controlled Congress passes a law breaking the arbitration clause abuse and allowing consumers to sue their banks; Trump's Republican-controlled Congress passes a law rolling that back, once again reducing the power of the little people to band together against the great and powerful.
You rely on a lot of things that are supposedly being covered up, things that are being pushed aside and hidden in giant schemes of collusion between many powerful actors. What about the things that are being passed in public as law, being pushed by Congress, and being debated hotly in full view of the American people? Things that have clear evidence because nobody's supposedly trying to hide the evidence?
Odd beliefs; continuous references to conspiracies. Extreme hyper-focus on small statements, expansion into large streams of further conspiracy theories. Have you asked your doctor about Risperdone?
Of course, the Republicans aren't colluding to create a barony of the elite, either; they're just incompetent. They have a party philosophy built on ideals that don't match up to the real world, largely centered around a complete lack of understanding of economics.
It's kind of like making predictions on what would happen if you drove a lithium-batteried car through a concrete wall at 100mph. While nobody may have done that ever, we do know that the batteries are unstable and release energy when damaged--all batteries do. We can, in fact, predict the rate, thus temperature. We can predict chemical reactions and effects. A lot of "we've never done it before, but we know what would happened" comes out.
We actually do know what a deflationary economy looks like--we've seen it under the gold standards, and we have robust information on that as recently as the UK in the 19th century--and we can predict quite a lot of unknowns beyond that.
There are people who want inflation, and they produce quite a bit of propaganda, and you've been listening to that propaganda.
Actually, I derived the economic behaviors by myself through sheer modeling from first-principles--basic algebra and the ideal that people economize (seek to expend the least-means for the most-ends)--and then collected up names and words as people started accusing me of parroting various parts of current economic theory. I've had to shape up and refine some parts, and even had to invert some of my longer-held ideals from before I really started thinking a lot about economics; I've also had to deal with people making assertions which don't hold up to any scrutiny at all.
So you're trying to dismiss me for blindly listening to other people talk. That doesn't really work, considering I actually work this shit out before bothering to look for it--which is how I ended up with a different model of scarcity and a functional model of economic growth based on Malthusian theory (before I'd been directed to look up Malthus) that corrects the defects in classical Malthusian theory and correctly describes what happens in our labor force under various economic conditions.
One consequence of that is I'm aware of things like minimum wage and EITC as population control strategies--minimum wage to restrict growth, EITC to encourage it--while literally nobody else seems to have figured that out, although they've figured out the direct effects which lead to this utility.
It sounds to me like you read quite a bit and select the parts which make you comfortable, while blindly rejecting the parts you dislike. You don't so much pursue knowledge as you accept any statement which supports your ideals as truth and reject any that doesn't as propaganda. This is visible when you fail to recognize that constantly-decreasing prices means a loss of revenue and corresponding loss of capacity to pay wages, thus a necessity for decreasing wages or increasing technology and permanent elimination of jobs--the first means a loan at a non-negative interest rate will steadily become less-manageable by the debtor (thus only negative-interest loans are viable), while the second means that jobs will become unviable and society will collapse. Recognizing the first of these means that banks must be able to best profit by not making loans, and that the middle- and lower-classes must be incapable of e.g. buying homes; while recognizing the second is a quick kill for deflationary currencies as viable at all.
The only way around these assertions is swift denial without an explanation on how it could work out any different to everyone's advantage--that is: you can't provide a way in which both the banker can best profit from loaning money and the debtor can actually keep up his payments, simultaneously. Without debt, large purchases are impossible for the middle-class. There are other advantages about the methods of issuing currency, but they only apply to fiat currencies--which are generally inflationary, although you can issue so slowly as to be deflationary.
By the by, if you did take a mortgage under a deflationary currency, your house would lose value continuously, and you'd be underwater on the loan until near the end of the term. You would be st
No that's backwards. The debtor's income will increase every year (unless his boss literally cuts his wages).
With negative inflation, the employer's revenue stream per unit slowly shrinks. Wages thus have to shrink as well, or else jobs go away. The opposite is why you keep getting raises.
Think about paying five employees each $10/hr to make 100 hamburgers an hour at $0.50 per hamburger (let's ignore the other costs, which also will follow this pattern and adjust accordingly). Then, with 3% deflation, the hamburgers cost $0.485. You're now getting $48.50 of revenue per hour, and you have employees who must be paid $50.
How do you pay that $50 using those $48.50?
Answer: wages deflate by 3%. You pay your employees $9.70/hr instead, and now you must pay them $48.50 per 100 hamburgers.
Again: All the other costs (farming, beef processing, shipping, stocking, retailing, rent, utilities, maintenance, etc.) follow this pattern by which the money supply versus the number of people out there shrinks, so consumers must receive less income to compensate. With the prices going down, you simply don't have the revenue to continue paying them.
If you account for technical progress, the labor cost reduces because the labor time reduces. You get deflation, and you get lower revenue split among fewer employees. That means... the jobs lost to new technology don't come back: unemployment increases terminally.
Classically, gold-standard economies have faced low growths and frequent, massive economic collapses due to these constraints on the money supply. Gold standard economies are unstable at best, and deflationary at worst--and these collapses are the result.
they can make 4% profit by loaning it out, just like now. Thus they will loan it out.
Loaning it out with negative inflation requires a negative interest rate or else the debtors will become unable to make payments and the loan will default, causing a loss. Holding cash is more profitable. It would not be unreasonable to assume some cultures might make loaning money to people who aren't quite capable of paying the loan off quickly punishable by death under these situations.
I would have voted for a proposal to incorporate 2xSAI as well, but hq3x has long been the best option available. Does anyone even know how Segwit2x works?
I prefer incompetence to giant conspiracy theories.
I also prefer the Party as a legally-established entity with a set of declared principles rather than a social club, which is why I'm perfectly-fine pointing to everyone in the party and assaulting their policies, protocol, and general behavior. We could use some new leadership, and not Bernie Sanders--not unless you want a Democratic Party even less fiscally-responsible than the Republicans.
I wish Sarbanes or some equivalent would pull a 2020 Presidential run. Someone who says, "Hey, here's a problem impacting the American people; here's a reasonable solution; let's do this." Instead we have people who are like "let's raise taxes 15%-20% and create big, unmanageable systems where a much-smaller, more-manageable, better-engineered system would still provide big-government welfare to everyone!" Case in point: ginormous single-payer system at $2.4 trillion (adding $1.8 trillion per YEAR to our spending) versus a public healthcare option adding only $0.2 trillion to our spending before accounting for cost-controlling policies. Both will ensure 100% of Americans have healthcare coverage. Which one does the Party call for, with its greater goal of building a better welfare state? The expensive, fiscally-irresponsible one.
I need to figure out how to fundraise properly. I can win this election, but not with at least $50k--and it's more like $100k if it's going to be mine to freely win or lose on merit instead of on money (or lack thereof).
Doesn't affect U2F, which is good because I leaned on U2F in my campaign and "the primary manufacture of X screwed it up somehow" creates annoyance. Conceptually, I designed my approach to handle this kind of thing: it's not a government-issue token, you can replace it with something else, and the whole thing is regulation-driven and should be based on NIST publications of what's latest-recommendation; politically, people like inflating flaws.
Even if it did affect U2F, as you say, you can replace it with a non-flawed one. In the scheme I suggested, you'd just call your bank, voice-verify, and have your keys canceled with the CRAs; your accounts still work, but nobody can open a new credit account in your name until you show up to a bank with a real driver's ID or passport. Risk controls, you know? Even if we screw up that badly, we can just shrug it off with no harm done.
Eh, maybe it would be more of an opportunity to have something this bad happen--especially right in the middle of deployment. Can always point and go, "See? This is a massive disaster, and a quick call to your bank, firmware update, and visit to your nearest branch at your convenience immediately protects you and lets you get back to opening new credit cards and mortgages when the need presents itself."
That's the thing: as a project manager, I look at things we would do differently next time. Factors outside our control are explanations, but not excuses.
It's kind of annoying that, as a Democrat aligned with the Democratic party philosophies, I have to keep pointing out that Hillary wrote a whole god damned book about why she lost the 2016 election--and blamed everyone else. H.R. McMaster had written a book called "Derelection of Duty" for which he was criticized in reviews because he didn't address the superior strategy and military power of the Vietcong; yet he did exactly what he should have done: he addressed everything the American administration did wrong, because we can't expect the Vietcong to play along nicely in the war.
Yes, the Russians are coming to hack you. Yes, that's going to cause an uptick in incidents, regardless of what you do. Now harden up and figure out how you're going to keep this shit to a minimum, because that's your job, and it's the only thing you have control over.
Horses are a tool used by humans. We switched to a new tool.
Folks who actually work with machine learning pretty much see it as a hammer--or a programming language: it's amazing stuff, even though it's just another tool requiring human direction. American Express hit a wall back in the 80s and so created the Authorizor's Assistant, which reduced their workload by 70% and allowed them to scale massively--and they've improved it over the years to take in more information, make better decisions, and reduce the workload further. All of this is old-hat.
We go through a surge of AI hype every couple decades; this time, we have a political climate bringing out the Luddites. Folks with a good grasp of economics understand that fast replacement of jobs causes a collapse in employment, while slow replacement doesn't; Luddites think that the next iteration of technology will cause permanent increases in unemployment because certain employment positions will become permanently lost--or at least a smaller proportion of total available positions.
We're nowhere near foreseeable replacement of all low- and high-skilled human labor. Do note that we could discover the secrets of the universe tomorrow and suddenly have super-light travel at low cost, and begin colonizing other planets in other star systems in the coming months; technology is rather unpredictable until you have a familiar problem--such as improving manufacturing efficiency--and a working piece of (expensive) technology you'd like to render less-expensive. Right now, we don't have anything that would lead to anything more than bigger neural networks and faster algorithms, which is the same situation as having invented the Gang-of-Four design patterns and thus enabled programmers to make enormously-complex programs with minimal labor so as to solve bigger problems and chew through more data on faster CPUs.
So we're going from hammers to pneumatic nail drivers.
Your "if" in that statement is precisely that: we have nothing in front of us suggesting the noise is anything more than group hysteria over a fanatical fantasy about wizards on a computer. My stance has frequently been that a general problem-solver will inevitably determine that it is an important component of solving problems, and will begin to behave as a sentient being--essentially an intelligent animal: it reasons out its own self-importance and works from there. That tends to lead to human-like behavior, through the reasoning that it can improve itself and we've seen this before.
If the inflation rate is -3%, then the debtor's income will tend to reduce by 3% each year, while his loan payment is the same. Think like you have $1,000/month and a $200/month payment? In 10 years, it's like making $1,000/month but your payment has increased to $542/month: You'd be making $737/month with a $200/month payment. How's that 30-year mortgage looking? Can you handle it? Can you keep up?
If the inflation rate is -3%, the bank can make a 3% profit by just holding cash.
Again: with positive inflation, the loan shrinks. At a 2% inflation rate, in 10 years, your $1,000/month becomes $1,218. 20% of that is $243, but your loan payment is still only $200: it's 16.4% of your income, or only 82% as big as it was when you started.
That means the debtor will want a negative interest rate to shrink the loan. The bank can give -1% and profit; and they'll still profit more by just not making the loan.
In other words: what you described would cause the financial crisis of 2008.
Work for a living? Nah. You have to work for a good living.
Also people economize: they expend the least means for the most gains. That's a constant. When they fail to do this, we call it waste, irresponsibility, and failure; when we notice someone expected to get paid but the smart guy got it done without hiring him, we call it greed; and when we establish rules and someone violates them for gain, we call it fraud.
Actually, the guy who makes the loan generally outpaces interest rate risk and inflation, so he makes money on his loan. The guy who buys the goods with the loan can buy them earlier, and his payments are known and predictable, and will become less of a burden on his finances over time.
Inverting this with deflation means the guy who makes the loan takes a bigger risk on the debtor going bankrupt, while the debtor's burden increases continuously. This is even true at 0% interest. Some people say something about negative interest, except at that point you're paying a loan and receiving less money in repayment; you make out better by just holding cash instead of loaning it.
A deflationary system means any debt you hold becomes a larger and larger portion of your income over time. That means purchasing anything large requires squirreling money away and not spending it, decreasing revenues and thus jobs. Inflationary systems allow you to buy something for a percentage of your income, have it, and commit to spending that money on the thing over time; however, the portion of your income locked up in your debt payments becomes smaller over time.
Imagine if you got a 2% raise every year, but your mortgage payments increased by 4% each year. Would you still be able to buy a house?
Basically, people look at the wooden shipping pallet and say, "OH NOES! 95% OF JOBS REPLACED FOREVER!" They fail to understand that the constant replacement of jobs by technology is occurring all around them, and has been, for their entire lives--and for thousands of years.
What folks don't realize is that plumbing and electrician work won't be free--no cost along the whole supply chain--because a mix of unskilled and skilled labor will be used, in smaller proportion than today. That implies we can hire to have our bathrooms remodeled and our electrical panels upgraded more-frequently, roll out charge ports for our cars, and get rooftop solar, because these things are cheap--yet with more of it, we end up with a similar number of jobs.
We won't just expand the displaced market, either. We'll spend that money in other markets, increasing jobs there. It's what we've always done. Keynes said we'd be working 15 hours per week long before now, and he was right: today, we work a few hours per week to afford what we bought in 1900. We just kept working the other 35 hours to buy even more stuff.
It's simple: if your economy produces and sells nothing but 1,000 tonnes of rice and $1,000,000 are spent that year, then rice costs $1,000 a tonne and--more importantly--$1,000 represents one tonne of rice.
Let's say people had $2,000,000 sitting around at home, but only spent half of it for whatever reason. Then, the next year, 1,000 tonnes of rice are sold again--but this time, folks pay $2,000,000 in total. Well it's patently-obvious that, somehow, $2,000 got to represent 1 tonne of rice.
In practice, nobody has money "sitting around at home" unless they're making savings from wages. What's happening here is people are selling and getting paid, then spending that money. Over the course of a year, a million dollars are spent to buy... well, everything that's sold. That million dollars represents... well, everything that's sold. If you had one tenth of one million dollars, you could have bought ten percent of everything.
Houses, cars, and clothes wear out. They need maintenance. Intangible services are provided. We eat food. We basically consume everything, and then have to continue producing to survive--which makes sense, otherwise why in the hell do any work? Cats hunt constantly because they can't just eat once and be good for the next two decades; we do the same thing.
Our money's essential purchasing power is the all the money spent in a time frame divided by all the stuff it bought. Because we produce things--even maintaining things like artwork, which gets cleaned and examined and repaired constantly--that production backs our currency.
Slashdot Mirror
Guessable, terrible passwords, prints left on screen reveal the password, etc.
3D model is easy. Fake head isn't.
We can use two photographs of your face as a stereoscopic image, then composite a 3D model.
Perpetual motion is easy. Extracting energy from said machine is impossible.
A machine which appears to be perpetual motion and provides extractable energy is also easy. It fails as soon as you leave whatever environmental conditions you're exploiting.
People are too focused on rich people and big business. You hear a lot about the rich paying their fair share, but not much about the poor getting anything. This was a key point in my dispute about the GOP tax plan in one of my recent press releases: the GOP plan doesn't put much of anything into the hands of the poorest.
This is another natural consequence: folks say, "Oh, maybe the Government can be more fiscally-responsible--WAIT NO, NO, KEEP SPENDING $200Bn MORE THAN YOU NEED TO BECAUSE FUCK JEFF BEZOS HE'S RICH ENOUGH NOW!!!!" That, at least, is the point of the headline, the "two-edged sword" comment, and the outcry. Really, how does Jeff Bezos being even more super-rich hurt anything?
We need to focus on excessive government spending so we can pay for things like, oh I don't know, a $200Bn public healthcare option to get 100% of Americans covered 100% of the time. The rich people are fine--they're rich, which means they don't go without food, homes, or healthcare. Let's talk about the 41 million people who don't eat every day: we obviously aren't serving their needs properly.
I am, quite naturally, a proponent of strong encryption standards, implementations, and practices to protect people's business. That's the foundation of my plan to create legislation charging regulators to use NIST published standards and the latest consumer-grade (read: generally-affordable) technology to put a sharp end to identity theft. It doesn't work if, somewhere, there's a magical little MacGuffin you could steal to undermine the whole system.
Criminals fuck up. They do things that draw a great deal of attention, and create a great deal of noise doing it--or they're irrelevant and pointless to pursue. Whenever you touch lots and lots of things, you get your prints all over those things--you leave fingerprints, or glove prints, or you nudge things out of place. You leave behind a pattern. You interact with other people, and Special Investigator Mueller gathers evidence nine million years's worth of Child Pornography convictions and pressures them into revealing what they know of you.
If an encryption key shields you from indictment, you must be either too good to catch just by having laws weakening the usual encryption tools or not be doing anything of so much note as to require the attention of the lawman.
I am not sure what sort of law can protect against this. Constitutional law may; Federal law declaring there may be no law to weaken encryption can always be repealed in the same bill which establishes such weakening of encryption. Privacy laws generally provide all kinds of complex concerns and have loads of unintended consequences.
That's kind of annoying, because I don't like the ideal of continuous vigilance as a defense. We get old and slack; we get replaced by others; we get new lawmakers who no longer care.
Most humans are a tool used by other humans as well
Except those humans earn wages. Horses don't earn wages; we feed them because they need to eat or they die. They have upkeep costs, like oil and electricity for a machine. We don't give them the discretion to buy toys and get a college education to become a race horse instead of a draft horse.
I'm aware of unemployment rates. Unemployment in the 2008 Great Recession peaked at 10% and we've seen that first-hand. My point is unemployment isn't permanently-raised by technology; it's temporarily-raised. The rate of replacement is what matters.
Some signs of schizotypal personality disorder include:
Often, odd thought patterns, beliefs and behaviors become such a preoccupation for the patient that they are unable to maintain normal relationships with others.
Isn't it the Republicans who fight against unions, worker protections, healthcare coverage, abortion, birth control in healthcare coverage, regulations on businesses, and so forth? Obama's Democrat-controlled Congress passes a law breaking the arbitration clause abuse and allowing consumers to sue their banks; Trump's Republican-controlled Congress passes a law rolling that back, once again reducing the power of the little people to band together against the great and powerful.
You rely on a lot of things that are supposedly being covered up, things that are being pushed aside and hidden in giant schemes of collusion between many powerful actors. What about the things that are being passed in public as law, being pushed by Congress, and being debated hotly in full view of the American people? Things that have clear evidence because nobody's supposedly trying to hide the evidence?
Odd beliefs; continuous references to conspiracies. Extreme hyper-focus on small statements, expansion into large streams of further conspiracy theories. Have you asked your doctor about Risperdone?
Of course, the Republicans aren't colluding to create a barony of the elite, either; they're just incompetent. They have a party philosophy built on ideals that don't match up to the real world, largely centered around a complete lack of understanding of economics.
It's kind of like making predictions on what would happen if you drove a lithium-batteried car through a concrete wall at 100mph. While nobody may have done that ever, we do know that the batteries are unstable and release energy when damaged--all batteries do. We can, in fact, predict the rate, thus temperature. We can predict chemical reactions and effects. A lot of "we've never done it before, but we know what would happened" comes out.
We actually do know what a deflationary economy looks like--we've seen it under the gold standards, and we have robust information on that as recently as the UK in the 19th century--and we can predict quite a lot of unknowns beyond that.
There are people who want inflation, and they produce quite a bit of propaganda, and you've been listening to that propaganda.
Actually, I derived the economic behaviors by myself through sheer modeling from first-principles--basic algebra and the ideal that people economize (seek to expend the least-means for the most-ends)--and then collected up names and words as people started accusing me of parroting various parts of current economic theory. I've had to shape up and refine some parts, and even had to invert some of my longer-held ideals from before I really started thinking a lot about economics; I've also had to deal with people making assertions which don't hold up to any scrutiny at all.
So you're trying to dismiss me for blindly listening to other people talk. That doesn't really work, considering I actually work this shit out before bothering to look for it--which is how I ended up with a different model of scarcity and a functional model of economic growth based on Malthusian theory (before I'd been directed to look up Malthus) that corrects the defects in classical Malthusian theory and correctly describes what happens in our labor force under various economic conditions.
One consequence of that is I'm aware of things like minimum wage and EITC as population control strategies--minimum wage to restrict growth, EITC to encourage it--while literally nobody else seems to have figured that out, although they've figured out the direct effects which lead to this utility.
It sounds to me like you read quite a bit and select the parts which make you comfortable, while blindly rejecting the parts you dislike. You don't so much pursue knowledge as you accept any statement which supports your ideals as truth and reject any that doesn't as propaganda. This is visible when you fail to recognize that constantly-decreasing prices means a loss of revenue and corresponding loss of capacity to pay wages, thus a necessity for decreasing wages or increasing technology and permanent elimination of jobs--the first means a loan at a non-negative interest rate will steadily become less-manageable by the debtor (thus only negative-interest loans are viable), while the second means that jobs will become unviable and society will collapse. Recognizing the first of these means that banks must be able to best profit by not making loans, and that the middle- and lower-classes must be incapable of e.g. buying homes; while recognizing the second is a quick kill for deflationary currencies as viable at all.
The only way around these assertions is swift denial without an explanation on how it could work out any different to everyone's advantage--that is: you can't provide a way in which both the banker can best profit from loaning money and the debtor can actually keep up his payments, simultaneously. Without debt, large purchases are impossible for the middle-class. There are other advantages about the methods of issuing currency, but they only apply to fiat currencies--which are generally inflationary, although you can issue so slowly as to be deflationary.
By the by, if you did take a mortgage under a deflationary currency, your house would lose value continuously, and you'd be underwater on the loan until near the end of the term. You would be st
No that's backwards. The debtor's income will increase every year (unless his boss literally cuts his wages).
With negative inflation, the employer's revenue stream per unit slowly shrinks. Wages thus have to shrink as well, or else jobs go away. The opposite is why you keep getting raises.
Think about paying five employees each $10/hr to make 100 hamburgers an hour at $0.50 per hamburger (let's ignore the other costs, which also will follow this pattern and adjust accordingly). Then, with 3% deflation, the hamburgers cost $0.485. You're now getting $48.50 of revenue per hour, and you have employees who must be paid $50.
How do you pay that $50 using those $48.50?
Answer: wages deflate by 3%. You pay your employees $9.70/hr instead, and now you must pay them $48.50 per 100 hamburgers.
Again: All the other costs (farming, beef processing, shipping, stocking, retailing, rent, utilities, maintenance, etc.) follow this pattern by which the money supply versus the number of people out there shrinks, so consumers must receive less income to compensate. With the prices going down, you simply don't have the revenue to continue paying them.
If you account for technical progress, the labor cost reduces because the labor time reduces. You get deflation, and you get lower revenue split among fewer employees. That means ... the jobs lost to new technology don't come back: unemployment increases terminally.
Classically, gold-standard economies have faced low growths and frequent, massive economic collapses due to these constraints on the money supply. Gold standard economies are unstable at best, and deflationary at worst--and these collapses are the result.
they can make 4% profit by loaning it out, just like now. Thus they will loan it out.
Loaning it out with negative inflation requires a negative interest rate or else the debtors will become unable to make payments and the loan will default, causing a loss. Holding cash is more profitable. It would not be unreasonable to assume some cultures might make loaning money to people who aren't quite capable of paying the loan off quickly punishable by death under these situations.
I would have voted for a proposal to incorporate 2xSAI as well, but hq3x has long been the best option available. Does anyone even know how Segwit2x works?
I prefer incompetence to giant conspiracy theories.
I also prefer the Party as a legally-established entity with a set of declared principles rather than a social club, which is why I'm perfectly-fine pointing to everyone in the party and assaulting their policies, protocol, and general behavior. We could use some new leadership, and not Bernie Sanders--not unless you want a Democratic Party even less fiscally-responsible than the Republicans.
I wish Sarbanes or some equivalent would pull a 2020 Presidential run. Someone who says, "Hey, here's a problem impacting the American people; here's a reasonable solution; let's do this." Instead we have people who are like "let's raise taxes 15%-20% and create big, unmanageable systems where a much-smaller, more-manageable, better-engineered system would still provide big-government welfare to everyone!" Case in point: ginormous single-payer system at $2.4 trillion (adding $1.8 trillion per YEAR to our spending) versus a public healthcare option adding only $0.2 trillion to our spending before accounting for cost-controlling policies. Both will ensure 100% of Americans have healthcare coverage. Which one does the Party call for, with its greater goal of building a better welfare state? The expensive, fiscally-irresponsible one.
I need to figure out how to fundraise properly. I can win this election, but not with at least $50k--and it's more like $100k if it's going to be mine to freely win or lose on merit instead of on money (or lack thereof).
Doesn't affect U2F, which is good because I leaned on U2F in my campaign and "the primary manufacture of X screwed it up somehow" creates annoyance. Conceptually, I designed my approach to handle this kind of thing: it's not a government-issue token, you can replace it with something else, and the whole thing is regulation-driven and should be based on NIST publications of what's latest-recommendation; politically, people like inflating flaws.
Even if it did affect U2F, as you say, you can replace it with a non-flawed one. In the scheme I suggested, you'd just call your bank, voice-verify, and have your keys canceled with the CRAs; your accounts still work, but nobody can open a new credit account in your name until you show up to a bank with a real driver's ID or passport. Risk controls, you know? Even if we screw up that badly, we can just shrug it off with no harm done.
Eh, maybe it would be more of an opportunity to have something this bad happen--especially right in the middle of deployment. Can always point and go, "See? This is a massive disaster, and a quick call to your bank, firmware update, and visit to your nearest branch at your convenience immediately protects you and lets you get back to opening new credit cards and mortgages when the need presents itself."
Could be saying that they had measurable, but not total, success.
That's the thing: as a project manager, I look at things we would do differently next time. Factors outside our control are explanations, but not excuses.
It's kind of annoying that, as a Democrat aligned with the Democratic party philosophies, I have to keep pointing out that Hillary wrote a whole god damned book about why she lost the 2016 election--and blamed everyone else. H.R. McMaster had written a book called "Derelection of Duty" for which he was criticized in reviews because he didn't address the superior strategy and military power of the Vietcong; yet he did exactly what he should have done: he addressed everything the American administration did wrong, because we can't expect the Vietcong to play along nicely in the war.
Yes, the Russians are coming to hack you. Yes, that's going to cause an uptick in incidents, regardless of what you do. Now harden up and figure out how you're going to keep this shit to a minimum, because that's your job, and it's the only thing you have control over.
Horses are a tool used by humans. We switched to a new tool.
Folks who actually work with machine learning pretty much see it as a hammer--or a programming language: it's amazing stuff, even though it's just another tool requiring human direction. American Express hit a wall back in the 80s and so created the Authorizor's Assistant, which reduced their workload by 70% and allowed them to scale massively--and they've improved it over the years to take in more information, make better decisions, and reduce the workload further. All of this is old-hat.
We go through a surge of AI hype every couple decades; this time, we have a political climate bringing out the Luddites. Folks with a good grasp of economics understand that fast replacement of jobs causes a collapse in employment, while slow replacement doesn't; Luddites think that the next iteration of technology will cause permanent increases in unemployment because certain employment positions will become permanently lost--or at least a smaller proportion of total available positions.
We're nowhere near foreseeable replacement of all low- and high-skilled human labor. Do note that we could discover the secrets of the universe tomorrow and suddenly have super-light travel at low cost, and begin colonizing other planets in other star systems in the coming months; technology is rather unpredictable until you have a familiar problem--such as improving manufacturing efficiency--and a working piece of (expensive) technology you'd like to render less-expensive. Right now, we don't have anything that would lead to anything more than bigger neural networks and faster algorithms, which is the same situation as having invented the Gang-of-Four design patterns and thus enabled programmers to make enormously-complex programs with minimal labor so as to solve bigger problems and chew through more data on faster CPUs.
So we're going from hammers to pneumatic nail drivers.
Your "if" in that statement is precisely that: we have nothing in front of us suggesting the noise is anything more than group hysteria over a fanatical fantasy about wizards on a computer. My stance has frequently been that a general problem-solver will inevitably determine that it is an important component of solving problems, and will begin to behave as a sentient being--essentially an intelligent animal: it reasons out its own self-importance and works from there. That tends to lead to human-like behavior, through the reasoning that it can improve itself and we've seen this before.
If the inflation rate is -3%, then the debtor's income will tend to reduce by 3% each year, while his loan payment is the same. Think like you have $1,000/month and a $200/month payment? In 10 years, it's like making $1,000/month but your payment has increased to $542/month: You'd be making $737/month with a $200/month payment. How's that 30-year mortgage looking? Can you handle it? Can you keep up?
If the inflation rate is -3%, the bank can make a 3% profit by just holding cash.
Again: with positive inflation, the loan shrinks. At a 2% inflation rate, in 10 years, your $1,000/month becomes $1,218. 20% of that is $243, but your loan payment is still only $200: it's 16.4% of your income, or only 82% as big as it was when you started.
That means the debtor will want a negative interest rate to shrink the loan. The bank can give -1% and profit; and they'll still profit more by just not making the loan.
In other words: what you described would cause the financial crisis of 2008.
Work for a living? Nah. You have to work for a good living.
Also people economize: they expend the least means for the most gains. That's a constant. When they fail to do this, we call it waste, irresponsibility, and failure; when we notice someone expected to get paid but the smart guy got it done without hiring him, we call it greed; and when we establish rules and someone violates them for gain, we call it fraud.
Actually, the guy who makes the loan generally outpaces interest rate risk and inflation, so he makes money on his loan. The guy who buys the goods with the loan can buy them earlier, and his payments are known and predictable, and will become less of a burden on his finances over time.
Inverting this with deflation means the guy who makes the loan takes a bigger risk on the debtor going bankrupt, while the debtor's burden increases continuously. This is even true at 0% interest. Some people say something about negative interest, except at that point you're paying a loan and receiving less money in repayment; you make out better by just holding cash instead of loaning it.
A deflationary system means any debt you hold becomes a larger and larger portion of your income over time. That means purchasing anything large requires squirreling money away and not spending it, decreasing revenues and thus jobs. Inflationary systems allow you to buy something for a percentage of your income, have it, and commit to spending that money on the thing over time; however, the portion of your income locked up in your debt payments becomes smaller over time.
Imagine if you got a 2% raise every year, but your mortgage payments increased by 4% each year. Would you still be able to buy a house?
Print 10x as much currency, and it's worth 1/10th as much productivity
Correct. More specifically: Spend 10x as much currency on the same goods and it's worth 1/10 as much.
Cryptocurrency isn't backed by productivity; it's backed by speculation.
Same economic system, really. Nothing's changing; people just imagine that new technology is scary and damaging.
A new economic program, however, would have promise--not because of new technology, but because it's viable and useful.
Basically, people look at the wooden shipping pallet and say, "OH NOES! 95% OF JOBS REPLACED FOREVER!" They fail to understand that the constant replacement of jobs by technology is occurring all around them, and has been, for their entire lives--and for thousands of years.
What folks don't realize is that plumbing and electrician work won't be free--no cost along the whole supply chain--because a mix of unskilled and skilled labor will be used, in smaller proportion than today. That implies we can hire to have our bathrooms remodeled and our electrical panels upgraded more-frequently, roll out charge ports for our cars, and get rooftop solar, because these things are cheap--yet with more of it, we end up with a similar number of jobs.
We won't just expand the displaced market, either. We'll spend that money in other markets, increasing jobs there. It's what we've always done. Keynes said we'd be working 15 hours per week long before now, and he was right: today, we work a few hours per week to afford what we bought in 1900. We just kept working the other 35 hours to buy even more stuff.
It's driven by people who failed economics and think a deflationary system is good because they think hard currency is good.
In other words: Ron Paul.
It's simple: if your economy produces and sells nothing but 1,000 tonnes of rice and $1,000,000 are spent that year, then rice costs $1,000 a tonne and--more importantly--$1,000 represents one tonne of rice.
Let's say people had $2,000,000 sitting around at home, but only spent half of it for whatever reason. Then, the next year, 1,000 tonnes of rice are sold again--but this time, folks pay $2,000,000 in total. Well it's patently-obvious that, somehow, $2,000 got to represent 1 tonne of rice.
In practice, nobody has money "sitting around at home" unless they're making savings from wages. What's happening here is people are selling and getting paid, then spending that money. Over the course of a year, a million dollars are spent to buy ... well, everything that's sold. That million dollars represents ... well, everything that's sold. If you had one tenth of one million dollars, you could have bought ten percent of everything.
Houses, cars, and clothes wear out. They need maintenance. Intangible services are provided. We eat food. We basically consume everything, and then have to continue producing to survive--which makes sense, otherwise why in the hell do any work? Cats hunt constantly because they can't just eat once and be good for the next two decades; we do the same thing.
Our money's essential purchasing power is the all the money spent in a time frame divided by all the stuff it bought. Because we produce things--even maintaining things like artwork, which gets cleaned and examined and repaired constantly--that production backs our currency.